Debates of Feb. 14th, 2000

Committees Of The House

[An hon. member]

This is horrible. I cannot believe it. It is incredible.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

This is scandalous. It leaves us speechless. It sends shivers down our spine. We are dealing with an organization worth $34.7 billion. In 1998 its net profits amounted to $135 million. And yet it only took 10 minutes to expedite the matter. It makes no sense whatsoever. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding in agreement. You are right, it is completely unacceptable.

Worse yet—I see that the Chair is listening very carefully—the Liberal members of the committee had been replaced by members who had not followed the committee's proceedings and who were acting on the orders of their whip.

Not only did they take ten minutes to adopt the report on the EDC, an organization with activities totalling nearly $35 billion, but most people who were there had not even followed the work of the committee. We can see what kind of attention that report was given. Like you, I am outraged.

I think this shows contempt for the business of the House. Also, the chair of the committee insisted on holding meetings on the very day Bill C-20, which deals with the clarity issue in a future referendum in Quebec, was debated in the House. It is outrageous. As a Quebecer, as the representative of a Quebec riding, it was my duty to speak out against Bill C-20 on behalf of my constituents and to support the Bloc Quebecois, whose mandate it is to defend democracy for Quebec here in the federal parliament.

But what was the committee doing at the same time, in the building next door? It was ramming through a report which, after all, did not have to be adopted so hastily. It could have been studied more thoroughly, but no. While Bill C-20 was being debated here, the Liberal majority was in another building ramming through this committee report with people who had not even followed the work of the committee.

The people who are listening to us at home have every reason to be disgusted by the way parliament works when the Liberal majority decides to ignore democratic rules in this House.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Since I have been here, we have always worked closely with other parties in committee. We often disagreed, but we could still talk, exchange views and try to advance ideas that sometimes were contradictory. But the clash of ideas often generates the spark of understanding.

For the first time since my arrival here, there was animosity, anger, the air was so thick you could cut it with a knife in this committee.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Acrimonious.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

The atmosphere was acrimonious, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has so eloquently put it.

This is not how a parliament and committees should work.

I can see members coming into the House to hear this bitter criticism of the way the Liberal government operates. It is a shame to bring in what I call puppets to get a report like this passed.

However, on many issues, on many points, the Bloc Quebecois agreed with the Liberal majority. We presented a dissenting opinion, because we completely disagreed on other points. I see my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert supporting me on this, and am grateful.

We agreed on a number of points, and there was the possibility of talking and taking time to reach a consensus in this committee. But no. This highly undemocratic government violates not only the rights of Quebecers to decide their future, but also the democratic rights of the members of this House to express their points of view properly, democratically, thoughtfully and coherently. All of this warrants the sharpest criticism possible.

The Bloc Quebecois, which drew on invaluable testimony gathered at public hearings, considers that there is an obvious lack of transparency in the operation of the EDC. There is a serious lack of access to information. Discussions could have continued at the report stage of the committee.

I am sure that some members of the Liberal majority, had they simply not followed the orders of their whips like robots, would have agreed with us. But no, to use a latin expression, they rubber stamped it.

They said “That is what the government has decided to do”. In any case, for the Liberal majority, everything from the government is good. In my opinion, it is overly injurious. I expected the work of the committee to be conducted in a way that would allow Liberal members to freely express their views.

However, the Liberal members, even those who were sitting on the committee, often came to the meetings unprepared. They simply followed the minister's orders, passed on by the parliamentary secretary, while opposition members, particularly Bloc Quebecois members, came prepared. In fact, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who was there at the very beginning, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, and my colleague for Mercier have always been among the best prepared. We took our responsibilities seriously, we were prepared—

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

We are the best.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

We are the best, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot just said.

But then what happens? Liberal members are mere bodies. They come unprepared; they are just like puppets. They often ask totally inane questions. They rubber stamp a report like that one in ten minutes. It is unbelievable.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I agree.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

I am pleased to see that members of the Progressive Conservative Party agree with my assessment of the Liberal performance in many committees.

During the hearings, witnesses expressed their delight that the EDC was not required to make public potentially damaging information about deals. The Bloc Quebecois is sensitive to these concerns. However, we find it entirely unacceptable that such a situation persists and we are worried that maintaining these standards will undermine the positive effect of the Export Development Act.

Once again, since I am certain that this is the case, I would like to repeat that we could have convinced the few Liberal members of the committee able to think for themselves that our view was the right one.

It is entirely normal and legitimate to worry that, with such a lack of transparency, the ECD's activities could serve ends entirely inappropriate and even contrary to the objectives of the bill. As an example, even as the bill was being reviewed by the committee, it was impossible for a Bloc Quebecois member to obtain a breakdown of the EDC's financial activities in Quebec.

If there is one place such information should have been available, it is in committee. When a bill is being examined in depth, it should be possible to get the answers to such questions. But despite repeated requests, the hon. member for Mercier was unable to obtain a breakdown of the EDC's activities in Quebec. Once again, it sends shivers down one's spine.

We therefore think it essential that the government retain the proposal of its task force to the effect that the EDC should be subject to the Access to Information Act. In my opinion, that is a minimum requirement.

Furthermore, in our opinion, this report is incomplete and the committee has not fulfilled its mandate properly, because the connection between the activities of the EDC and the question of human rights was pushed aside in favour of issues that were mainly economic.

The Bloc Quebecois has some serious reservations about how human rights are respected by the EDC. I would like to address this touchy point a bit further.

Although the EDC does provide financing services, it is particularly active in credit insurance. Among the risks it assumes are political factors. Even in assessing political risks, the EDC does not take the human rights situation into account, which leads us to say that, before providing its support to a company, the EDC should, as a bare minimum, ensure that the company in question subscribes to the OECD code of conduct relating to human rights.

It seems to me that a country that boasts of being a beacon for the world as far as the respect of human rights is concerned should ensure that one of its arms, namely the EDC, is making sure that companies with which it does business ensure that human rights are respected.

It would be unacceptable for the legislation to be used as a way to evade the precepts that guide our society in order to provide largesse to companies that are very often involved in developing countries.

Before I conclude, there is another aspect of the report we cannot let go without comment: the delicate issue of environmental standards. I can sense that the hon. member for Jonquière is riveted to her seat, because for her the environment is something that is fundamental.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That is true.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that the committee's recommendations on the environmental responsibilities of the EDC are limited to wishful thinking. We think, rather, that they should be based more specifically so as to further reflect the EDC's duties in this regard.

I would remind the House of what is written in the report. We shall see the best recent example—there are a number; we could have chosen others—of Liberal blah blah in such matters.

At pages 52 and 53 of the report, I will read their recommendations. Mr. Speaker, if you are able to understand what these recommendations say, I would like to speak to you. I quote:

The Committee accepts that EDC's environmentally-related plans are a good start but agrees with the Gowlings review that they are insufficient in themselves. At the end of Part I of this Report, we suggested a general amendment to Section 10 of the Export Development Actwhich would add language requiring EDC to give due regard to “the commitments and obligations undertaken by Canada under international agreements”. In our view, this would include internationally-affirmed principles of sustainable development and obligations under multilateral environmental agreements. If there is any doubt on that point, wording to this effect could be added to Section 2 (Interpretation) of the Act. We also see merit in adding language elsewhere in the Actwhich would impart statutory weight to EDC's environmental review framework and establish some basis of environmental criteria on which to determine the eligibility of project proposals for EDC support. While EDC may see such measures as “redundant”, in light of the perceived weaknesses in its present Environmental Review Framework, we believe that EDC could further enhance its public credibility by conducting—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has moved concurrence in this particular committee report. I can only think that he is arguing against it now. He is actually reading the report instead of debating its concurrence. All I am hearing is him reading the report. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think the hon. member was intending to read the report. I trust he was quoting from something in it that we wanted to refer to in debate. I know he will do that, very briefly.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am only quoting one recommendation, Recommendation No. 21. I think I am allowed to quote. I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is gesturing to tell me that it is a very long recommendation.

We wanted it shorter and we wanted it stronger on environmental rights. Thank goodness they are not the ones who will draft the next referendum question in Quebec, because their recommendation does not even pass the clarity requirement they want to impose on Quebec.

So, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has something against the length of the recommendations of his Liberal majority, let him say so. We wanted it shorter and also stronger on the issue of the environment.

So, I continue to read the recommendation; it is only one recommendation. I feel like starting all over again, because he does not seem to have understood anything, but I will continue for the benefit of those who are listening to us.

We also believe that independent public oversight—reporting to Parliament at regular intervals on EDC's performance in respect of the implementation of its Environmental Review Framework—would be enhanced by adding a provision to the Auditor General Actestablishing the Office of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development as the Government's designated agent for that purpose.

I am still quoting the recommendation.

In regard to disclosure and accountability issues, the Committee takes the view that disclosure of environmental impact assessments which allows sufficient time for preventive action—i.e., identification and mitigation of potential problems as early as possible in the course of the proposal approval process and the project cycle—should be the operating rule, subject only to any commercial confidentiality and viability requirements that the Government deems essential.

In addressing this matter in its forthcoming public disclosure framework, we would urge EDC to carefully consider all of the arguments and relevant international experience. Finally, as we suggested in the previous section, EDC should explore the option of creating an ombudsman post within its organization to respond directly and in a timely fashion to public inquiries and appeals regarding sustainable development impacts.

This is one recommendation, and the government hopes, with this kind of mumbo-jumbo, to advance the cause of international environmental rights. It is ridiculous and proves, as the member for Jonquière said, that they do not want to do much when it comes to the environment.

I see you are asking me to hurry up, Mr. Speaker. That is unfortunate, because I could go on for hours about the disgraceful way the Liberal majority has behaved in this business. Not only is the report so much lip service, but when it came time to adopt it, ten minutes was all it took, when we were talking about a entity with some $35 billion in business. Puppets who had not followed the committee's work were brought in to rush the bill through.

So, to those who are listening, and I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker, as much as I am addressing those listening, it is very unfortunate that, when it comes to things as important as this, the Liberal majority has decided to trample any semblance of democracy. But who can be surprised?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised both by the tone and by the content of the member's speech for whom until now I had a lot of respect as a member of our committee.

I am a little astonished for a number of reasons. First, he rose to move that the report be concurred in by the House, but he spent his time not so much attacking the report as attacking the behaviour of our Liberal colleagues on the committee.

I regret what he said all the more because, until now, I thought that members of our committees worked rather well together. Attacking the behaviour of other committee members seems to me somewhat out of place in this House.

As far as the substance of the report is concerned, I believe it stands on the strength of its very responsible recommendations. I might remind members of what was happening when the House was about to rise, last year.

Members of the House will recall what occurred at the end of the last session. The committee met with the intention of adopting a serious report which had been the subject matter of a long series of reviews.

I totally disagree with the member's analysis as to the comportment or attention of any of the members. Many members followed these debates with a great deal of interest. All members on all sides were very interested in ensuring that there was a balance in the report of the role of the EDC both in guaranteeing that corporations and individuals who export from this country receive adequate financing to enable them to carry on their business globally and at the same time ensuring that the EDC respected human rights values and the other concerns members rightly raised before the EDC.

The report strikes a good balance between the needs of the EDC to ensure that Canadian exporters are well served by financing tools outside this country and at the same time to ensure that the human rights and environmental concerns of our citizens are met. It is a balanced report. It is a responsible report which has the support and the concurrence of members of the House.

Since the member saw fit to challenge the way in which the report was adopted, let me remind the member that the report was adopted in the absence of members of the Bloc Quebecois. They knew that the meeting was taking place. They were aware that it was taking place and they chose not to come.

It seems to me disingenuous to say that the report was approved by the Liberals in attendance, the Reform members and the other parties present, in the absence of our Bloc colleagues. Bloc members were boycotting the meeting precisely because at the time they did not want any committee report to be approved before the House adjourned for the holidays.

I have a lot of problems with what the member said. I respect his opinion as far as the substance is concerned. I am ready to debate it on its merits, but as far as the form is concerned, we can criticize neither the committee nor the procedures it adopted.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comment of the hon. member for Rosedale. We did not choose to boycott. We were in the House because we were debating a fundamental bill, Bill C-20, which is an unprecedented attack on Quebec's future.

We were not boycotting the committee, far from it. My assistant in committee was even calling me to let me know when it was time to go there. In the meantime, I had to attend the House. I was not boycotting, and neither was any other member of the Bloc, because the Bloc never did. We participate in committee work in a productive way.

Previously, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, which is said to be a committee where tempers sometimes flare up, because it deals with issues that affect very directly the lives of Canadians and Quebecers.

I always made an effort, along with all the other Bloc members who sat on the Standing Committee on Justice, to ensure the bills move forward reasonably fast when we were in agreement. In a few minutes, I will address Bill C-7. The five political parties gave their support to this bill. We all worked together to move forward a bill whose objectives we support.

When I was appointed to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was told this was the least partisan of the House of Commons committees. I was pleased, because I do not like it when it is too partisan and I like it when we can work together.

I was most surprised and disappointed to see this was not the case when the report was adopted, on December 14 of last year. I was disappointed.

We can disagree with the substance of the report, and I am prepared to debate it further, but I find it totally unacceptable that it was adopted in ten minutes, at a time when we had to be in the House to counter an unprecedented attack against the democratic rights of Quebecers.

People in my riding ask me “Mr. Marceau, what can we give you as a Christmas present?” I always ask for the ability to be everywhere at the same time. But I do not yet have that ability.

I had to be here, in the House, and therefore I could not attend the committee meeting at the same time. But I ran all the way, and my colleague from Repentigny will recall that he and I ran from this House to the East Block to try to make it in time. But between the time we received the call saying “Come quick, you need to come” and the time we got there, the report had already been adopted.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask some questions on the review of the Export Development Act.

My colleague and his party are committed to the separation of Quebec. Given the fact that they want to pursue it and that one of their objectives is to ensure the strength of the French language and French culture in North America, what would happen if Quebec gained independence and was trying to engage in bilateral economic relations and trade with the United States, an entity many times larger than the province of Quebec? What would this do to the strength of the French language and culture in North America?

Does my colleague think that one of the things that prevents Canadian companies, be they in Quebec or in une autre province, from being as competitive as they can be is the fact that high taxes and egregious rules and regulations are making Canadian companies less competitive than what they could be?

What would be the fate of the French language and culture when Quebec is forced to engage in trade as an independent entity with the United States? Are the taxes, rules and regulations as they currently stand choking the life out of companies in Quebec and the rest of Canada?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to see that the members of the Reform Party are for the first time showing some interest for the French language. It is a bit surprising.

I will be brief. Since 1760, and even before, Quebecers have always been challenged to excel, if I can put it that way. Being a minority people in North America and living right next to the world's biggest economic, cultural and military force, Quebecers are challenged to excel. Since the Quebec people began to exist, this challenge has always been addressed by Quebecers.

When the debate on free trade became an electoral fight in 1988, Quebecers were the ones who made it come true. Quebec supported free trade while our friends on the other side were against it. But, what did they do as soon as they were elected? They began to support it. As members can see, if we repeat things often enough to them, they finally see the light, at least this is what I hope.

The majority of Quebecers are in favour of free trade. The sovereignist movement wants to be at the crosspoint between the two main movements, the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, which means political independence and economical interdependence. This is why we were in favour of the free trade in 1988, why we were in favour of NAFTA in 1992 and why we were in favour of the Free Trade Area of the Americas until 2005, because we will take up the challenge to excel. We have done it before and we will do it again.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.